Choosing a Gaming CPU: Single + Multi-GPU at 1440p, April 2013
by Ian Cutress on May 8, 2013 10:00 AM ESTSleeping Dogs
While not necessarily a game on everybody’s lips, Sleeping Dogs is a strenuous game with a pretty hardcore benchmark that scales well with additional GPU power. The team over at Adrenaline.com.br are supreme for making an easy to use benchmark GUI, allowing a numpty like me to charge ahead with a set of four 1440p runs with maximum graphical settings.
One 7970
Sleeping Dogs seems to tax the CPU so little that the only CPU that falls behind by the smallest of margins is an E6400 (and the G465 which would not run the benchmark). Intel visually takes all the top spots, but AMD is all in the mix with less than 0.5 FPS splitting an X2-555 BE and an i7-3770K.
Two 7970s
A split starts to develop between Intel and AMD again, although you would be hard pressed to choose between the CPUs as everything above an i3-3225 scores 50-56 FPS. The X2-555 BE unfortunately drops off, suggesting that Sleeping Dogs is a fan of the cores and this little CPU is a lacking.
Three 7970s
At three GPUs the gap is there, with the best Intel processors over 10% ahead of the best AMD. Neither PCIe lane allocation or memory seems to be playing a part, just a case of threads then single thread performance.
Four 7970s
Despite our Beast machine having double the threads, an i7-3960X in PCIe 3.0 mode takes top spot.
It is worth noting the scaling in Sleeping Dogs. The i7-3960X moved from 28.2 -> 56.23 -> 80.85 -> 101.15 FPS, achieving +71% increase of a single card moving from 3 to 4. This speaks of a well written game more than anything.
One 580
There is almost nothing to separate every CPU when using a single GTX 580.
Two 580s
Same thing with two GTX 580s – even an X2-555 BE is within 1 FPS (3%) of an i7-3960X.
Sleeping Dogs Conclusion
Due to the successful scaling and GPU limited nature of Sleeping Dogs, almost any CPU you throw at it will get the same result. When you move into three GPUs or more territory, it seems that having the single thread CPU speed of an Intel processor gets a few more FPS at the end of the day.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
242 Comments
View All Comments
HisDivineOrder - Thursday, May 9, 2013 - link
Shhhhhh. You're using too much of that stuff called sense. It might spread and suddenly everyone would want case reviews that reflect what anyone who'd install a motherboard in 99% of the cases they review instead of miniITX for every review. I mean, there's no way that putting a miniITX or microATX into every case review isn't going to impact the actual case being reviewed, is there?IS THERE?
crimson117 - Thursday, May 9, 2013 - link
Agreed - why review a full tower with a micro atx? Who builds like that?Gigaplex - Sunday, May 12, 2013 - link
I do. Is that a problem?Blibbax - Wednesday, May 8, 2013 - link
If you're recommending the A8-5600K, but for people with a discrete GPU, aren't you really recommending the FX-4*** series?Ortanon - Wednesday, May 8, 2013 - link
Excellent question.IanCutress - Wednesday, May 8, 2013 - link
Good point - apart from not testing the FX-4xxx processors (I don't have any), the FX-4xxx uses an AM3 platform - the FM2 platform is both newer and the chipsets offer more native USB 3.0 / SATA 6 Gbps as well as a UEFI BIOS from the ground up. The FX-4xxx is still a relevant choice with its L3 cache, and a couple of newer boards have been released to try and get the best from the 990FX chipset. Though out of what I have tested so far, the A8 makes the most sense if you're looking at pure 1-GPU gaming. If I get an FX-4100 in, it will be tested and conclusions adjusted if it performs similarly - there's no point suggesting a CPU I haven't tested and can't back it up with data.Ian
Blibbax - Wednesday, May 8, 2013 - link
I entirely agree that it'd be wrong to make conclusions without data. However, I feel like the APU recommendation ought to go with some sort of "however..." caveat.I look forward to your FX4 and FX6 results, however. I was initially not at all sold on these chips, but now that the prices have come down and the FX6 is often priced against Intel's i3, they are much more compelling.
DeathReborn - Wednesday, May 8, 2013 - link
There's always the Athlon II X4 750K BE which still uses FM2 but lacks the IGP.Cow86 - Wednesday, May 8, 2013 - link
If you're going to compare it against Trinity APU's, then wouldn't it be fairer to get an FX-4300, based on the same piledriver core? See if that L3 cache makes enough of a difference? More up to date as well...kmmatney - Wednesday, May 8, 2013 - link
If you live near a microcenter, you can get an FX-4130 (3.8 Ghz) and motherboard for $99. That leaves quite of room to get a better GPU, and probably a better overall gaming experience for a given amount of money. I upgraded from an X4-955 to a 3570K about 6 months ago, and have to admit that I barely notice the performance increase in games, and would have probably been better off spending the $250 on a better video card. I do like the extra speed while using handbrake, though, and my son likes my old X4-955 that was a big upgrade from his previous setup, though.